Weidner's criticisms of Kevin Drum are underwhelming.

First, Weidner doesn't even attempt a defense of Bush's appointed administration politicizing science. Instead, Weidner offers an unsubstantiated "everybody does it" defense.

Second, Drum does note most administrations will spin the science to a certain degree--just not as much as this appointed administration.

Third, Weidner then launches into an attack on UCS that is unsupported by any fact. And he conveniently ignores the fact the UCS report was endorsed by 20 Nobel prize winners comprising the cream of the crop WRT the US scientific community.

All in all, Mr. Hobbs, not your best effort. And to call Kevin Drum a liar is certainly beyond the pale.

Considering I and others have documented his lies, it's not beyond the pale. I've documented your lies too, liar.

Jaded,
President Bush was Elected, go back and study your history before posting more socialist nonsense.

It is beyond the pale. I'd add it's most unChristian as well.

Telling the truth is not unChristian. And please go read the New Testament and see what Jesus called people who were doing things that were wrong. Hypocrites. Liars. Thieves.

He called it as he saw it.

Jade,

I very explicitly was NOT defending ANY politicizing of science, so it's stupid to complain that I didn't offer a defense. Nor did I offer an "everbody does it" defense.

My point was that Drum was lying when he claimed that this was something NEW.

The UCS report may well be correct here. Fine. But for Drum to present them as disinterested truth-seekers shocked to find politics distorting science is ludicrous.

Mr. Weidner: Drum did concede spinning the science has occurred in most every administration. However, this administration has taken it to new levels.

I think you misunderstood Kevin Drum when he wrote:

The UCS report, which is endorsed by 20 Nobel prize winners, makes clear that it has no problem with arguments over policy. After all, there are usually plenty of facts and arguments on both sides of any policy question. It's perfectly valid, for example, to argue for a wide variety of policy responses to global warming, including doing nothing.

But putting your head in the sand and refusing to accept the actual research itself is another thing entirely. It's hard to think of anything more corrosive to the scientific process, and the extent to which the Bush administration does this is unprecedented. Nixon didn't do it, Reagan didn't do it, and Bush Sr. and Clinton didn't do it. Only the current administration has done this on a regular and sustained basis.

My emphasis added.

What is happening in this appointed administration is that the various agencies are releasing findings and the WH ignores, suppresses, or distorts it. That is new.

Previous administrations might take the agency findings and spin policies that may not have necessarily addressed the issue or may have favored a certain special interest.

But this altogether different. This is about suppression and distortion.

The UCS is not a scientific group, it is a political group. Science is not about consensus, it is about verifiable truth. UCS is a group that is pushing an agenda, see this for more:
http://www.activistcash.com/index.cfm?ORG_ID=145

There is no proof that humans are causing global warming. To enact restrictive environmental laws or sign on to the Kyoto Accords based on current science would be a costly mistake. Socialists are using the global warming scare to push their agenda, which is to tie the US economy down and control its citizens.

The lawfully elected President of the United States has wisely chosen to pull the US out of Gore's folly and to call for more hard science.

The UCS is not a scientific group, it is a political group. Science is not about consensus, it is about verifiable truth.

Any group can be considered 'political,' Matt S. The fact is the UCS study in question was authored by a technology writer and a Cornell physics professor.

UCS was founded in 1969 by faculty and students at MIT.

The report was also endorsed by 20 Nobel prizewinners.

There is no proof that humans are causing global warming.

Hahaha. And the earth is flat...

>And the earth is flat

Actually, there is proof that it is not.

>The report was also endorsed by 20 Nobel prizewinners

So? Science is not consensus. The people who have made new discoveries usually do so against the grain of scientific consensus. They do not accept conventional wisdom, they instead experiment and observe.

You can't trust a weather report for what is going to happen next week. How can you accept a report on what is going to happen next century? In the '80's the fear was that we were going into a new Ice Age, we can not predict with any certainty what Mother Earth is going to do.

>There's an awful lot of science out there that is concensus.

Wrong, there is verifiable science or there is consensus opinion. There can be agreement that a given theory is valid. It is valid because they can prove it, not because an esteemed group gets together and says it is so.

We should be teaching the scientific method. Teaching people how to observe, theorize, and test. That way they can come to their own conclusions.

Evolution should be taught as a theory with its supporting evidence. If Creationism can be shown to a have scientific basis, then it too should be taught along with its evidence.

Considering the fact that descendents we will never know will live with the consequences of our environmental decisions, does it not at least make common sense to act in a conservative, cautious fashion?

It is indeed remarkable how so-called conservatives fight tooth and claw to safeguard material things, yet throw caution to the wind with regard to the care and stewardship of our world.

Perhaps it was with good judgment we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

Global warming is indeed a fact. That man's endeavors have any nontrivial input to global warming is what's under dispute. And there's been exactly zero scientific evidence that supports any claim of nontrivial correlation between anything man does and global temperature. If you disagree, then pony it up.

The fact that any scientists maintain the fiction despite the absence of any evidence indicates, to me, that it's all about politics and none about science.

Again, the overwhelming consensus (there's that word) among climatologists and other scientists leaves no doubt that human activities had and are having measurable—and increasing—impacts on global climate.

False because you say so? Forgive me if I laugh just a bit.

As I said...just pony up the data. Consensus doesn't equal science. If there's no hard data to back up the consensus, it's a deeply flawed consensus.

Dear Mr. Gold,

Why are you such a cynical ass? You seem intelligent and appear to have a tremendous amount of time on your hands to research and post.

The link you posted about pseudo-science was a bit dry, but informative, I especially liked Lakato's slamming of Marxism. However, it is clear, due to the lack of evidence, that the proponents of human caused global warming are the ones using pseudo-science to further political ends.